The Secrets of the West's Success

(important piece)

We can finally piece together the west’s struggle to ‘transcend’ the human animal, and to become our gods. Truth is the common thread.

AXIS 1) Militarism, Militia, Heroism, Truth,
AXIS 2) Sovereignty. Private Property, Voluntary Exchange, Contract
AXIS 3) Jury, Common Law, Rule of law & Universal Standing, Natural Law
AXIS 4) Debate, Reason, Philosophy, Logic, Science, Medicine
AXIS 6) Near Breeding Eugenics, Manorial Eugenics, Criminal Eugenics

The People Who Fight (defense – order) Aristocratic.
The People Who Farm (capital – production) Libertarian.
The People Who Gather (labor – consumption) Socialist.

The Follies: Athenian/Spartan and Anglo/German civil wars.
The Plagues: i) Justinian / Arab ii) The Black Death
The Invasions: The demographic invasions of Greece, Of Rome, Of the Roman Empire, of Europe and Americas.
The Great Lies: i) Jewish Christianity, ii) Jewish Pseudoscience, iii) Islamism
The Great Losses: Arab and Turkish Conquests of The East , The Communist Revolution in Russia, Russian Conquest of Eastern Europe,

1) Narrative, Writing, The Story, The Dramatic Play, The Novel, The Serial.
2) Counting, Positional Numbering, Arithmetic, Accounting, Computerized Accounting,
3) Mathematics (sets), Geometry (space), Calculus (relative change), Statistics (probability),
4) (physics)
5) (evolutionary biology)
6) (economics)
7) (truth) Syllogism, ..(correspondence).. Critical Rationalism, Testimonialism,


Teoría de los costos de transacción de gobierno

Original article by Curt Doolittle :

Translation by Alberto R. Zambrano U. 

La historia dice que sólo el desarrollo de un estado – una burocracia monopolista- transfiere los altos costos locales de transacciones sin rentas centrales, a rentas estatales y bajos costos de transacciones. Los libertarios ignoran la evidencia de los costos de transacciones y el aprovechamiento injusto a un nivel local.
E ignoran aún más la demostrada necesidad de usar la violencia en forma organizada por una ente monopolio para suprimir aquellos costos de transacción y aprovechamiento injusto (“rentas locales”), y las convierten en rentas centrales de forma tal que se paga para dicha supresión.

El argumento es que los estados son, de hecho, un costo neutral y que nosotros no gastamos lo suficiente en ellos en la supresión de los costos de transacción, porque  los estados proveen múltiplos de retorno de esa supresión. Esto también es demostrable.

La pregunta no es lo que podemos hacer sin la presencia del estado (un corporación articulada como una definición monopolista de los derechos de propiedad), sino que una vez que hayamos suprimido los costos locales de transacción, y los hallamos reemplazado con rentas centralizadas para poder producir los bienes que llamamos “derechos de propiedad” – ¿cómo suprimimos las rentas centralizado toda vez que mantenemos suprimidos los costos de transacción y la habilidad de construir bienes que dicha supresión de los costos y rentas nos permita construir?

Discutir la definición de monopolio de los derechos de propiedad es de alguna forma “mala o incorrecta”, es irracional, ya que la propiedad, obtenida mediante el trabajo y el intercambio voluntario, bajo los requerimientos de productividad, garantía y simetría, es, hasta donde yo se, lógicamente consistente y las excepciones son operaciones matemáticas de números naturales. Así que la imposición de derechos de propiedad no puede ser ilógica, inmoral, no ética, sin importar la forma en la qu son impuestos ya que definen lo lógico, ético y lo moral.

No existe nada malo con la violencia – de hecho, es la violencia con la que pagamos por derechos de propiedad y libertad – es nuestro primer, y más importante recurso en la construcción de la libertad. En vez de ello, la pregunta es meramente institucional: ¿Habiendo usado la violencia para centralizar los costos de transacción en rentas, cómo usamos ahora la violencia para eliminar las rentas de la organización central?

Esto es bastante fácil: derechos universales de propiedad y derecho consuetudinario construido de forma orgánica, predicado sobre la base de que una ley de derechos de propiedad positivamente articulada sobre la prohibición y la supresión de transferencias involuntarias: la demanda de intercambios libres de exterioridad, productivos, garantizados y debidamente informados. Porque ésta es la única forma de cooperación que es racional, aquella que es debidamente informada, productiva, voluntaria y garantizada, en vez de su forma parasitaria. Y que la única cooperación racional es dejar a un lado la oportunidad que uno tiene de usar la violencia igualmente racional.
La pregunta entonces se convierte en ¿Quién prohíbe la formación de autoridad? y esto cae en la ciudadanía: -la milicia- aquellos que poseen el monopolio de la violencia.

Hasta donde yo se, éste es el análisis correcto de la evolución política, y la teoría correcta para la acción política a futuro.

Curt Doolittle.

URL: Tags: , ,

Objective Good vs Subjective Preference

(the thrust of this argument is a conflation of good and preference, and my opponent’s presumption that because of that conflation there are no ‘goods’. This may be a bit hard to parse, but there are objective goods.)

I think it is that I simply failed to provide sufficient touch stones so that you would draw the conclusions on your own.
In other words the argument I make is a necessary one. And that is why it’s an is.

That might take a bit but we will get there.

—” I would add my surprise to see you mention at the end that this is all about how things are and not should be.”— Mark

I Think you’re referring to this statement:

—“(g) as far as I know I am explaining what men do (is), not what they should do (should).”—

Which in the context I mean that men do what they must do. what they must do is what they in fact do (“is”). And what they should do is what they must do, and do (“should”). In other words, there is no difference between must, can, is and should. Or better stated, “Man justifies his group evolutionary strategy, whatever it is – he survives.”

—“I see you started out apparently very much talking about good/bad in a thread on political views necessarily based on moral views. So…?”—

So instead I am stating that moral principles necessary for in-group cooperation and are universal necessities (subject to limits), and that despite local variation in the portfolio of norms necessary for the purposes of competition, production, free rider prevention, and rent seeking, that must, can, is, and should are identical propositions.
The only question is cooperation between groups with different portfolios that are incompatible. In compatibility is universally decidable by property rights independent of local variation in the portfolio. And this also is what we see men do in reality.
So objective morality – rules necessary for rational beneficial voluntary cooperation – is universal.

–“good”— Mark

Now what is the difference between “preference” and “good”? Well I can prefer something I can experience myself. We can say that fulfilling a preference feels good. We can also say that something is good even if it isn’t immediately preferable.
So to avoid confusion, lets say that **a preference is an experiential good, and a good is either an non-experiential intertemporal personal benefit, or objectively decidable interpersonal benefit.**

–“starting point”— Mark

So, i start with the first question of “why don’t I kill you and take your stuff”. The first question of ethics.

The answer is then one of short and long run costs versus benefits. As long as one’s opponents promise greater cost than reward, we choose cooperation or boycott – if we can choose boycott.

From there, to the disproportionate rewards of cooperation assuming predation is costly. Or as biological evolution has informed us: we possess the intuitive ability to both imitate, and beyond imitate to empathize, and beyond empathize to cooperate, and beyond cooperation to anticipate demand for cooperation. We evolved it because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. But when we cooperate we must prevent free riders from undermining the incentive to cooperate – hence the human intuition to punish free riders (cheaters) even at high personal cost.

If a group decides that survival is not ‘good’ (bearing a cost of an intertemporal and directly imperceptible forecast subject to risk) and does not survive then it is not ‘good’ for others to imitate it if they wish to survive. Hence over time, good is defined as what others can imitate in order to survive. So, good is an evolutionary imperative, not a preference. A preference may feel good by analogy but it is not an abstract ‘good’ – a value judgement.
ie: subjective preferences and objective goods are different things. And those goods that are in fact ‘good’ are objectively ascertainable over time independent of subjective preference.



Evolution of Organizing

I’ll add a little context by way of political economy, and say that the world (a)first organized by household and slaves in the agrarian era by kinship relations, then (b) organized militarily and monarchally for the unskilled for the seasonal production cycle with extended relations, (c) then industrially and socialistically for the semi-skilled medium term production cycle of heavy capital and long term medium term relationships between firms, and is (d) currently organizing entrepreneurially and social democratically for the educated ‘discretionary worker’ for short term production cycles, highly distributed capital, and temporary networks of firms wherever it can do so.

But meanwhile (a) labor was never of much value in contrast to organizing production, and is of still declining value (b) marginal difference in firms was created by capital, and is now created by talent and creativity, (c) the duration of organizations (firms) has continued to decline along with the duration of networks of production. (d) Those countries playing catch-up will not sustain their growth because (e) institutions (trust and corruption) prevent them from doing so. So good institutions are less valuable than not having bad institutions. Worse, it appears that (f) good genetic capital is not as important as not having bad genetic capital. As France is illustrating, you can reverse the Flynn effect (benefit from transitioning from many individual rules to few simple general scientific principles of universal applicability).

We are engaged in the third world war at present, and it has no sign of improvement. And neither temporary networks of production nor the governments that facilitate may be able to survive the combination of a third world war, a slowing of growth, and a continued expansion of population of the underclasses for whom gainful labor is decreasingly available.

Not trying to rain on your parade, but the reverse side of the coin is just as frightening as the obverse is inspiring.


The Truth

The Truth was enough to create the west, and it is enough to restore the west.

But we must suppress the liars as we have murder, violence, theft, and fraud.

That is because like air, land, and sea, information is a precious commons that cannot tolerate pollution if truth is to survive.

Punish the wicked. And if requiring fails, what follows is bloody constraint.


Parasitism is as Natural as Cooperation: Man Follows Incentives

Parasitism is just as natural as cooperation. And so the function of the law is to discover new forms of parasitism so that the polity can insure one another against the new forms of parasitism.

So it is not simply natural to cooperate, it is natural to cooperate as much as incentives allow, and to act parasitically as much as incentives allow. And in almost all cases production is more burdensome than parasitism.

So, we create institutions to raise the cost of parasitism such that all incentives favor cooperation. We force everyone to participate in the market in order to survive.

And if we don’t grasp this we make the same mistake as the Enlightenment peoples, and in particular the classical liberal libertarians, and the cosmopolitan libertines: that man is good and oppressed, rather than man follows incentives and he needs to be prohibited from parasitism so that his only choice is production.

Not just because his participation in production increases productivity, but because his abstinence from parasitism decreases transaction costs, risk, and increases its corollary, trust.

In this way, prosperity is created not so much by the emphasis on the good, but on the prohibition of the bad, leaving only good actions available to man.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


What Does Quoting Great Philosophers Imply?

When one says “Socrates said…” or some other philosopher, in defense of some position, the fact that these thinkers said one thing or another never increases the merit of the thought – that’s an appeal to authority. Instead, it tells us that this idea has been in the public discourse for many years. And that we are not novel in our thoughts, or particularly insightful in our times. Instead, that we might learn from great minds how they approached the problem and see if we can better them having many additional shoulders of giants to stand upon between long ago, and the present. On the other hand what we find in these ancient texts and in all histories of man, is that he remains constant over time. It is his geography, the number of his population, and his technology that changes. Not he.


Man Is A Creature Of Incentives. Be Careful What You Wish For.

Building a nice pretty world is great for impressing the females. But too many of them take it for granted. Feminism killed our incentives to produce that world. They don’t seem to grasp that if we don’t have the incentives for that world, we can create any world we want with the incentives we want, and they’re just along for the ride.


Quarter, Ghetto, Now Ghetto City?

We had ‘Ghettos’ and ‘Quarters’ under the Great Christian Monarchies.

There is no reason we cannot have ghettos and quarters as we did under smaller scale states, and no reason we cannot have whole cities under today’s governments of greater scale.

Rule, governance, commerce, and existence are very different things.

(I have seen escape from ny btw. lol)


The Only Objective "Good" is Trade. Everything Else is Preference

Male – Female relations are a trade between competing reproductive strategies. Feminists seem to have the opinion that their strategy is superior despite the fact that all civilization seems to have been constructed to control women’s gossiping, lying, sexual and reproductive excesses as much as it has been to control men’s theft, violence, murder and war.

We compromise. If there is no compromise with women then we have the alternative to return to our natural state where women are mere cattle herded by men, with the only reprieve provided by affection by women and defense of daughters and mates by men.

What do you think the entire damned world does? Europeans treated women much better than others for historical reasons that are very hard to reproduce.